Skip to main content
1:00 am
some kind of cover so he can bring 140 republican votes with him. it will be very difficult to do a. obama will have to immediately decide whether he wants to it will have to be massaged in such a way through increased revenue and more money flow and fees. anything to avoid that horrible thing called a tax increase. >> we heard the last panel talked a little bit about redistricting and the impact on partisanship, especially in the house. the senate has gotten more ideological itself after last night. the democrats coming in include this gamut from elizabeth warren to heidi high camp. republicans, there are not many of them coming in, but jeff flake is on the oversight. >> jeff blake is a pro vote when it comes to climate change.
1:01 am
elizabeth warren was a republican candidates through the clinton years. the system -- director of the office of federal planning at the trade commission. this is one person attorney- general of the department of justice. domestic policy adviser to george w. bush. i jumped professor of law at the university of texas. his father fought against the batista regime. i'm talking about that great tea party rebel, ted cruz. you cannot look at this and say, this is what is going to happen. margo rubio, ted cruz, they will have that entry if they want to take it on reform.
1:02 am
there is a lot more chance, i think, for progress than we think looking back in the last two years and seeing what happens. >> the senate did get a little more ideological purity and this bogeyman that makes the house so ideological, that did happen. what is the impact on the house? >> i had to look to see if we were seeing an anti-incumbent year and a lot of people said no. a lot of members lost in primaries this year, but a lot of them were up against other numbers in the primaries. the numbers were even higher this cycle than it was in 2010.
1:03 am
in 2010 it was a double what it was in 2008. the pressure from the ranks is building each cycle. we're going to see a continuation of what we saw with the freshman class in 2010. this freshman costs will be about the same or larger, by the way. you have these guys coming in in places like florida. and cliff stearns was leading the solyndra investigation. but he could not make it happen. it was not enough for his district.
1:04 am
and i have a large animal that wants to see term limits and so on and so forth coming in. on the other side, you have a longtime democratic members retiring and been replaced. >> and then you have the fiscal votes. john boehner manage to round up republicans on the oversight of the caucus and joined with nancy pelosi and the government kept running. they put together the budget control act. they put together this bipartisan coalition. nobody wanted to take credit for it because it was embarrassing to the republicans to go back home and say, in the end, we are running the government in a bipartisan way.
1:05 am
yes, there will be ideological hotheads. but even among those freshmen, when they start feeling the pressure about the fiscal cliff approaching from the big factories, is that what they really want? i think it will get it done. >> it seems to me, there are two factions of the republican party battling for some kind of super mess. and it is the guys in the beltway, john boehner, mitch mcconnell, the leaders reverses the guys outside the beltway. the guys in iowa, rick santorum, the folks in south carolina who gave the primary to newt gingrich. beyond that, i feel -- ever since george of the bush's second term, there has been an anti-establishment reaction within the republican party.
1:06 am
they were embarrassed and angry with the bush administration. conservatism turned out to not be what they wanted. they wanted small government conservatism. i think everybody loves to many people into the tea party caldron. but you get the types that are determined to come here and do something against leadership. in ohio, he mentioned he likes the trappings of office, if you will. he mentioned to me, how much leadership can you exert? how much control can you exert over your own conference?
1:07 am
given the freshmen. and he said to be, it is not the freshmen. he said it is some of the older members. he did not say who. i would have preferred if he did. that is those who are trying to have perfect scores on these ratings. they are the problem. because anti-leadership is good for them. and it is not necessarily good for the institution as a whole. i think we will see now that mitt romney has lost, we will see this heat up, the insiders versus the outsiders. the activist class is going to scream at the other class for having nominated the guy who lost. >> they're the ones who survived, in part, because the conservative side is so splintered.
1:08 am
conservatives projected, way farther than they should. you can see someone like chris christie winning the nomination. he is the only moderate who? the sense to those voters in michigan and iowa and illinois. or you could see somebody like marco rubio doing it richard nixon and coming from the angry side and seeking roots into the more moderate base. >> we sit here and talk about how the republican party needs to moderate. those same discussions are not happening in iowa. in fact, it is the opposite.
1:09 am
they are saying, we have nominated two moderates in a row. look where it has gotten us, no where. i think it will start to see people like rand paul. and certainly, bobby jindal from louisiana. they will make a trip or two and test the waters. this new class, how are they going to react to being led? are they going to be able to be led? >> i think no one knows. that is kind of the point. in comparison to the enormous freshman class that we just had and everyone makes so much noise about, it is really instructive. considering the number of open seats that were left open for retirement and redistricting and so on and so forth, incumbents who lost, there will be more members of the house with fewer than two terms of experience in the 113th congress than any time in the last two decades in 1992 with redistricting and the banking scandal.
1:10 am
no one really knows. you have seen vader and cantor and other republican leaders fanned out across the country in the last few months. and even campaigning for incoming members who were in cakewalks in north carolina and california and other parts of the country that did not need a fund raiser from the house majority leader. but you saw him putting in face time and getting to know these guys on the trail. possibly in hopes of being able to work with them when they get here. >> or perhaps in securing their vote with republican leader elections, which happen to be right around the corner. one thing that they have got overlooked in the broad scheme of the house, would talk about redistricting as evil.
1:11 am
but there are some states that have taken a different approach. the number one state that has taken a different approach is california. california has gone to a bipartisan redistricting commission. they drew lines without input of the state legislature, allegedly without the input of the state legislature. over the last decade, 53 seats in california, five house election cycles. 265 elections in california and only one seat out of those 265 times changed hands. now, though, we have seen -- as they are still counting a lot of districts, but we have seen eight or nine competitive seats with a very interesting stories. tell us about it. >> on both sides of the aisle,
1:12 am
too. by the time we left the office this morning, there were 13 votes. there were about 200 separate in congressman dan lundgren from his democratic challenger in sacramento. and mcnerney had a tough race, too. both parties made a real effort to try to invest time and resources with consultants and apparatus that they have never had to pay attention to before because there was no point in going there. it is going to be interesting to see what happens. given how many seats hang in a very narrow balance right now, what we end up thinking about the final results of this election depends on a few hundred votes each in a half- dozen votes, which could tip an election either way.
1:13 am
and you would never cease and the like this independently with redistricting. a two seats open up in the fast- growing hispanic communities in the central valley. >> it is interesting to watch these two party committees. these are data points they have not had for years on end. it has been an interesting process to watch. one more question that will go to question and answers. if anyone has a question, there are folks around a room with microphones. flight one down and will be able to grab them. at the beginning of the cycle,
1:14 am
23 democratic seats, only 10 republican seats up in the senate. it seemed republicans were all but guaranteed to net the four seats necessary to take back the majority now we know that did not happen, thanks to luck and fortune and really dumb statements at debates and on camera. there's this other thing coming, and it is called 2014. not to jump too far ahead, but there will be a lot more, will there? >> yes, and democrats will be defending more seeds. it be 20 democrats. of the 15 republican seats, there's only one that is a prime takeover, and that is dubious, really. it is susie collins in maine. i think she could win a pre- election pretty easily unless maine republicans do something stupid and try to take her on in a primary. then you have frank leinberger, who will be 90 years old.
1:15 am
you have jay rockefeller of west virginia, who is going to be 77. you have carl levin. you have mary lender prior in arkansas. you have kagan in north carolina you have a seat that can be contested. to me, what that argument says is the senate, i don't think is going to be the obstacle to the grand bargain. it is the 140 republican votes that speaker boehner will have to get together. and actually, how does barack obama help boehner?
1:16 am
>> and another seat in 2014, mitch mcconnell's seat. whether in the primary or the general election, he is really concerned. he has been raising some the like a million dollars a quarter in the off-year for the last year-and-a-half or so. he hired rand paul's campaign manager. he is seriously preparing for the contest. >> he made the comment to our colleague, major garrett, that our top priority is stopping barack obama. and they did it, and congressional approval rating went on to historic lows. talking about statements being made when television cameras are on, one thing about this polarization that we have where all we do is we only watch msnbc or with only watch fox and we only talk to people that we want to hear from, you begin to adopt this alternative reality.
1:17 am
everybody is talking to you about the fact that when women are raped they cannot really get pregnant and you tend to believe it. and the rest of the world says, are you out of your mind? eventually, that will become a risk for democrats as well. >> and by the way, there is a kentucky democrat who is suddenly out of the job. ben chandler lost his seat last night. >> since you just brought it up, what is the murdock situation? is it that republicans should be more tolerant of women's issues? and even running at the end of the campaign ran an ad about women's choice. what is the message there? is it about tolerance? will they lose the women's vote, or is that an anomaly?
1:18 am
>> in talking about what the republican party should do, it brings up an ironic difference between the two parties. on the one hand, democrats have an iron fist on who is able to get through their primaries. we saw this in maine earlier this year. a woman was running and she wanted olympia snowe's seat. it was hard for her to raise money. across the country, democrats have the ability to pick their candidate, because of money supply, because of simple party organization, and simply the fact that the democratic senatorial campaign committee is able to go in and not be the bad guy when they get involved in a race.
1:19 am
on the other hand, you have the national republican senate committee, who because this activist class outside of d.c. cannot stand anything from inside the beltway and they have problems. they can do something here and there. they can guide a campaign stop to direct money into a fund or something like that, but to control who will be the nominee, they can really do that to the extent that the democrats can.
1:20 am
>> as you pointed out earlier, there is a wrinkle when you talk about outside the beltway and inside the beltway. you have these grass roots organizations in the hinterlands, but actually, they are playing hard ball inside the beltway. this was one of the more smart comments i have heard. this was senator lugar's explanation to his constituents in indiana. he said, i sort of knew i was going to lose because after the races in 2010 i knew i was a likely target of the super pacs dedicated to defeating a least one republican as it purification exercise is to enhance their own power over again republican legislature.
1:21 am
that goes to you should not vote for the candidates that you love by you sure can apply pressure to get inside the beltway organizations that are out there trying to boost their own clout in washington for their own personal purposes. that is one thing that republican leaders could do to try to improve this candidate selection process. >> what did those types of groups, what role they play? but they played a role in trying to choose candidates, much like we just discussed. it seems like such a long time ago, the primaries. especially this morning.
1:22 am
>> i think yesterday's seems like a long time ago. >> but in general, -- actually, one particularly instructive incident was the club for growth and a rather aggressive letter to the house republican leadership in march warning them off in getting involved in the member verses member primary between david schriber and dan quayle -- ben quayle in arizona. it's certainly got a lot of attention. the fact that these groups are not afraid to step in for no particular reason is a large reason why we end up with candidates who are willing to say and do anything. >> and by the way, in that race, quayle was the leadership backed candidates and schwiekwer was the growth backed candidates and
1:23 am
he ended up winning. >> the comment has been made on what will need to be the relationship between speaker gaynor and president obama on achieving a grand bargain. i wonder if you could comment on what role mitch mcconnell and senate republicans could play when mcconnell is up for reelection in 2014. what likely role will mr. mcconnell and his senate republicans play in achieving a so-called grand bargain? >> our colleague, major garrett, did some great political sleuthing a few weeks ago.
1:24 am
he talked to some leadership aides in the senate and identified a dozen or so republican senators that could be relied on to vote for some kind of revenue package. the fact you now how a couple more votes toward the magic 60 number on the democratic side will have a little bit -- well, scott brown was one of the republicans that was being counted on. my personal instinct is that the senate is doable. it is eric cantor -- you know who could play tremendous role is paul ryan. he is a champion of the conservative side of the party, but his voting record shows that he will vote for smart compromises. he will moderate his views. and he is someone who could really sell a deal to the republican right.
1:25 am
the question is, is this the first step that he was to take toward being the nominee, cutting a deal with obama? or does he want to be the champion of, no way, we will stick with the ryan budget to the last man? >>, speaking of all right for a second, the most famous republicans in the house -- speaking of paul reihan for a setting, the most famous republicans in the house, paul ryan did all right on site. but a couple of the others, michelle bachmann had close race. alan west looks like he is going to lose. some really close contest for some well-known candidates. >> we have seen this in a couple of cycles in a row with michelle bachmann. she is learning that acting the way she does is great for fund- raising, but it is also great for her opponents fundraising, too. patrick murphy is looking like a good bet to join congress next year.
1:26 am
he is a 29-year-old who worked in his family's construction firm for a little while and raised god knows how many millions of dollars from all across the country to just barely keep pace with the avalanche of tv ads that west put on the air. there is a benefit to being the tea party icon, but also a cost. also, going back to the question of what role the leaders will play in this, and even the earlier point about whether the members will allow themselves to be led, it is important to remember that congress will only hang around for three, maybe four days a week now. the people who are the freshmen and the folks like them that they are taking their cues from, they are not the party leaders. they are friends from back home.
1:27 am
they run into them in the bar or the diner. a friend of mine spent some time in rural florida and recently was one of the tea party infused freshman down there, mr. ross. he told him he does not feel pressure from boehner and cantor and whoever, but the guy he runs into a of the local restaurant. >> the pearly and strategy that won obama reelection, about part of it is putting the president in about a cross it, you did not have a president who went to georgia or texas or louisiana or montana and later helped bring in democrats, or soften up a little bit of this opposition, the constant pounding he has been taking for four years that have demonized him in a lot of the states.
1:28 am
that is one week as he allowed coming in. at the end of his speech last night, i thought it was highly significant that he went on to there is no red stains or blue states. if that is the way he governs, then it will be hard to go to georgia and texas and convince them that he means it. but that is the way he sinks the roots of health care. >> what did you learn last night in 30 seconds? >> it goes back to the party is sorted themselves into different parts of the country, sorting themselves further and further at ideologically from each other. and it is not just geography and ideology. is race also. if you look at the seats that republicans went after, the democratic seats that they still managed to go after, almost all of them were more than 80% white, the populations.
1:29 am
on the flip side, the majority of the republican held seat, the 40% on white or so were targeted by democrats. both sides were successful on the edges. more and more, the parties are sorting themselves further and further apart on so many different levels. >> what did you learn last night? gregg's i learned an amazing historical fact. this is the first time since jefferson, madison, and monroe that we have had three presidents elected to two terms in american history. i do not know exactly what it means, but there you go. >> i learned the democrats have a real problem coming up. we've heard a lot about how they will do with demographics, how they will deal with hispanics.
1:30 am
what democrats have, though, is a problem with the obama coalition. they got it out in 2008. they got it out in 2012. can they get it out in 2014, in 2016 with another presidential candidate? or is this coalition specific to this individual person who has such resonance within the democratic base? thank you also much. i really appreciate your time.
1:31 am
condi introduced our panel. alex brill, neera advisor to hillary clinton in 2008. >> i do have a day job. >> gary bernstein, former chief economic adviser to joe biden.
1:32 am
>> jared bernstein is a senior fellow and formerly the chief economic adviser to joe biden. we should have separated you two. >> today is a day for happy progressive families. >> i want to talk about some of the issues that have -- that are specific to emerging constituencies. i want to start with the big question -- obviously a position where we have a democratic president but a republican house and a in large democratic majority in the senate. look at the new configuration and this incredible agglomeration of fiscal choices periling down on us. what does that point toward at this point? jerry, let me start with you. does this make some kind of deal more or less likely? >> i think it makes the deal a little more likely, not as likely as i would like it to be. ideal i do not mean this gets resolved before january 1. by the way, and i saw the markets tanking today, which is an unfortunate thing.
1:33 am
they really were expecting a different outcome then the numbers suggested. the probability. they were supposed to be numbers guys. but if a deal begins to take shape, and it looks like during the lame duck -- it does not have to pass during the lame- duck to avoid the recessionary contraction there in the fiscal clef. at the center on budget, where i work, we have talked about it more as a fiscal slow. you can turn around quickly and maybe have the budget jump. i do not think it will be recessionary. look, i am not sure about this. i am still digesting it like everybody else. i am tired. but it does seem to me that a
1:34 am
newly elected president or president elect gets most often what they want rather than somebody who has been toiling away for years with the obstructionism we have seen. i'm feeling a tiny bit more optimistic that there are going to be enough grown-ups in the room to orchestrate a deal that involves both cuts on the spending side, which he has done a lot already, $1.7 trillion of cuts have already been stored and passed. and some new revenues. >> let me ask you, after this election, do you so -- for see a circumstance where republicans accept a deal of a net increase in revenue as part of a long-term fiscal deal? >> they have already made that overture. it was not heralded much by the
1:35 am
press. even with the most conservative representatives in the united states senate on that committee, the republicans made an effort to increase revenue. at that time it was not accepted. that is a very important point. i would like to start by saying -- i was in two administrations, congratulations to the other side for winning, the american people have spoken, but the second term as hard. there are a lot of unexpected surprises to pop-up. the president has been months. the fiscal cliff would always be addressed. but with the results of the election and the margins would have determined the complexion of the deal going forward. if indeed romney had one, with a republican sweep, the members would have a short-term
1:36 am
solution and have gone home and would have left a whole mess for the republicans to deal with. now that they have the presidency and the senate, i think that is much more incentive for the democrats to take a more thoughtful and a longer-term solution point of view on addressing the fiscal cliff. >> what you see? >> i don't think we will see a lot in the next few weeks other than half of a framework deal. the democrats have more of an incentive to engage on how the process plays in 2013. there has been chatter about how a lame-duck deal could be struck that not only moves the deadline of the fiscal cliff, which is a really boring policy outcome, but sets forth a path
1:37 am
for resolving some of these issues. and to the question of whether revenues should be part of that solution, i would agree. the key for republicans is the rates themselves, not more over the dollars themselves. in this past debate, the fight over what the marginal or statutory tax rate will be, they are ready to shift more to talk about the tax burden. there are ways to get there. there are ways to get more revenue. >> the president ran more than anyone ever on raising taxes on the top. >> i think you can tie this to the previous conversation.
1:38 am
it was unprecedented that a candidate ran on raising taxes on wealthy americans. in every single debate, the president talked about it. it was in iowa, made his last closing remarks, he took the stand. it is not just something he talked about. it was an issue that was important to the coalition that elected him. this is an issue important to working white voters. as well as african-americans and latinos. and white women. it is not just promises made. of all the issues, this is one that was clearest. it was one that they could really only focus on. the challenge to the
1:39 am
conversation in washington is that i think the republican party is in an odd position because their posture is let us not do this thing that is the most popular item to do. let's tax everybody or some other group of people. and the president has a very strong position. and it is also a very popular thing to do. if anything, we have a grand bargain that moves away from the politically popular thing to do toward the more politically difficult thing to do. as a progressive, i am not sure why the president would want to do that. why move and issues on taxes when the republicans will do things that are less popular. >> do you see any way that he signs an extension of the bush
1:40 am
tax cuts? >> i find that awfully hard to see. i agree with neera. what i think i hear alex and the secretary saying -- correct me if i'm wrong -- something that is very popular, tax reform, which is that, yes, we need a new revenue and we are willing to bring in revenue to the table, but it has got to be broad based and not from increasing their rates. the problem there -- it is like mitt romney's math problem. you cannot get the revenue you need just on the 250-plus folks. you have to go below that -- >> in terms of narrowing exemptions. >> raising taxes on "the middle class," households under $250,000, which happens to be
1:41 am
90% of all households -- i am not sure that formulation works. this is a great economic argument -- i am not nearly as obsessive as the economic impact of going from the top rate -- basically resetting to the clinton years, where not only did poverty fall steeply but we had a budget surplus. broaden the base, lower the rates -- in this climate, you get a tiny broader base and tiny lower rates and it is not going to work. >> on the base broadening question, one of the things on the president's budget is a base-broadening proposal -- >> raises $500 billion over 10 years. >> doesn't lower the rates. >> but the framework of having
1:42 am
a base-broadening -- how you get there -- i was asking the question, would the republicans accept revenue? you are asking if they would enough revenue -- >> to stabilize the issue. >> i think the president's math is faulty as well. even if you tax "rich people" in the country, that will not close the deficit. it was not a clear mandate, and the turnout was quite low -- >> but if there is not -- >> clearly there is not great enthusiasm.
1:43 am
>> we are very closely divided at this point and you have the president standing here and the house republican starting here, what is the place that you can envision -- >> we don't know, because the president has not stepped up to take leadership to he has been campaigning for 18 months, with a note to disrespect. people on the hill are looking for leadership. >> just be fair, he has a budget proposal. he put forth a budget proposal, it did a speech on a, it is in his budget. it gets $4 trillion in deficit reduction. >> paid for the sequester. >> the idea that he has been out campaigning -- >> he has to bring members along. he is the only member of his party --
1:44 am
>> the critical question -- >> in some ways -- >> the republicans' offer was not accepted, let's not forget that. >> we are in reality where, without the president's signature, the tax cuts will expire. what will the response be of the congressional republicans -- >> we will see what happens to double the lame-duck session. the electorate is very divided. unless the president tacks to the mill, we will be faced with a horrible scenario. when wall street drops, it is not just companies that are suffering big is people
1:45 am
interested in companies -- >> wall street has done very well -- >> i'm talking about pensions. the overall quality of life -- >> let me move on -- >> very basic point. >> the fiscal cliff is important i washington for good reason, but in the country, all these issues -- can you see any scenario where the two parties may be able to agree -- work force, education -- basically, equipping people to get ahead
1:46 am
faster than we have seen -- is there any place where we've seen initiatives from the president or congressional republicans and where they might converge? >> look, i've actually optimistic. this does not sound optimistic, but i want to sound optimistic. i came to washington in 1997. president clinton had been reelected, and he did not have a senate, and he did not have an expanded democratic majority in the senate. the president has said this before, but people had tried to defeat president clinton, it failed, and they recognized it was in their interest to get things done. over the last couple of years, we have seen that people have been very focused on the presidential election, but republicans up leaders on education reform, senator landrieu had a workforce on
1:47 am
education -- you had republican leaders, lamar alexander. there are areas like renewable energy where republicans in the past have supported proposals that the president did, too. there has been punishment of bipartisanship the past two years, and is that punishment lifting? do the republicans worry about facing tea party opponents? or do they say -- i am hopeful about senators like senator alexander, because they may realize there is not up point to coming to washington -- >> the romney proposal on individual development accounts
1:48 am
and training got a lot of praise across party lines -- >> community colleges -- >> are there areas where they might be -- >> on job training, of course, but not spending money like the jobs bill president obama wanted, $8 billion, $23 billion already on a jobs program scattered throughout the whole federal government that really should be challenged to do better. there needs to be necessary reforms to improve job training so that people who are unemployed can get the relevant training, and when they graduate, they can get real jobs. let me go back to neera's point. i think divided government is an excellent opportunity to tackle the really, really important issues in our country. at the largest issue that we have are the spending. we are going to lose
1:49 am
potentially our rating as a nation because of our irresponsible deficit spending. if the two parties can get together at tackle the whole issue of entitlement spending, we would be contribute and a great deal to our country. >> i want to follow up that question and ask neera real quick -- john boehner expressed openness to reductions in spending, reforms, but not structural changes, not ending the federal entitlement to medicare or medicaid, as the ryan budget would do. where do you think that goes after the election? >> i think the president really crossed the rubicon there by putting medicare and medicaid on the table. neera mentioned the budget -- hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts.
1:50 am
romney tried to put it back in. i thought it was very ironic. social security? no, it has not been on the table. i think he has already done so and i suspect he will continue to. >> one of the interesting things about that -- we will go to the audience in a minute -- think of the context. medicare is one of the policies that transfers resources down the generational ladder. from the retiring baby boom that is 80% white and moving it into an uninsured younger population, it really in many ways -- the federal government has $700 per capita, something like that -- is striking that under such explicit attack, for kind of rebalancing that i think you are getting at as well, the amount we are spending for
1:51 am
these entitlements of the elderly -- >> i think that is a very interesting and insightful way to look at $716 billion, as really almost a redistributional transfer of health care from young people to the elderly. >> that was part of the attack -- >> yes. >> the money was going to be saved -- >> no, no, no -- >> cuts to fund obamacare. that is exactly what it was supposed to do. >> the effect was to move resources from seniors to the uninsured people, moving down the generational ladder at a time that the federal government spends 700 less per capita on seniors. we almost never do that in
1:52 am
public policy, shift resources from seniors -- >> the reason -- one of the reasons why that happened, that there was a coalition behind, is that some of the resources went back into -- coverage of the -- >> eight more years of solvency. >> luck, i think -- >> rebalancing? >> i would say that the president's policies were attack on the point of redistribution. whether romney made those attacks to get some support for his coalition versus another, i cannot speak to. i think the president's coalition -- >> more accurate to say that
1:53 am
the president offset those attacks. the attacks worked. he was just able to overcome that because he got enormous margins among the people -- >> that is entirely true. >> would benefit from this. the democrats are laying down the tracks to prevent cuts to programs and in the process for changing -- >> no, but -- i think this is an important question. the issues on health care, cap support deductions and health care, medicare, etc. -- the president was very specific about beneficiaries, and those beneficiaries in the future -- >> is there a generational -- when you see this through the generational lens of appeal to
1:54 am
a population that is 80% white -- what do you think of the debt issues? how does the generational lens applied to this question of the fiscal consolidation? some said that paul ryan is saying we are going to leave medicare the way it is -- >> that is more interesting than the specific transfer, because i'm not a sure that the transfer is ultimately sustainable. it makes the math work -- >> more sustainable today than -- [laughter] >> there is certainly far more interested in the broader question of the debt burden. i think it is question that all economists are worried about, this debt-to-gdp ratio and. in the generational context as well.
1:55 am
at the people are much more aware after years of a trillion dollar deficits than they were four or five years ago -- >> it is not the generational issue, because young people voted overwhelmingly for -- >> you are basically saying, are we saying to them, you are going to have to bear the burden of all the consolidation and we are going to exempt ourselves from it, because in the right version, for example, nothing really happens for 10 years. we put more money back in for seniors. generationally, does that work? >> there is the time value of money, and if you start a program with a far enough horizon for younger people, there is time to make up the difference. that is the purpose of having that delineation.
1:56 am
the other think i would say is, you know, i don't think it is the penalty. with a divided government, there is an opportunity to take on these hard issues. both sides are going to be blamed for taking on an unpopular positions. we saw that in 1986, with the tax to between tip o'neill and ronald reagan. i think divided government is an excellent opportunity to tackle some -- >> do we have some questions out here? do we have some questions in the audience? i think we are -- >> we have answered everything. >> while we are finding questions, this is what i wanted to file away from what secretary chao is saying -- there was a point in the clinton administration were he was able to say to democratic constituencies, who were resisting various kinds of reform and retrenchment, "hey, if it was up to me, i would not
1:57 am
be doing this, but i have these crazy republicans on the hill and therefore i have to --" in other words, would it be easier for president obama to sell democrats are reforming medicare and medicaid and job training programs if, in fact, he has the ability to say, "look, the republicans made me do it"? >> in 1997 there was a budget deal. there was a lot of savings in medicare to basically fund that budget deal, and democrats have resisted that. it is not that you cannot find compromise. the question is, it has to be an honorable compromise. i guess my view of this is, to me personally, i would find it a little depressing if our entire debate after republicans lost seats in the house -- still have the majority but lost some
1:58 am
seats. democrats expanded their majority in the senate, which nobody expected. if you had said a year ago that democrats would expand their majority, people would have literally said, "you are crazy." and the president was reelected and basically swept the swing states. we may be divided -- >> but there is a tilt. >> in my view, there is a progressive majority for governance. to go with the same policies that he had a year and half ago with boehner would be a disappointment to people who worked very hard to elect him. if he takes that debate to the country like he did with payroll taxes, more and more
1:59 am
people -- >> let me ask a final question and i will start here and go down the line. if we say that the principal economic concern of the public is the decline of economics security and mobility, the crisis we've been living through in various permutations for decades, and it is not clear how much leverage we have to really change this -- if you are going to say what are the two or three things public policy to do to increase the odds of more americans ascending the economic ladder in their lifetime, what are the two or three things you think at doing to increase the chances of americans moving up? >> we have to preserve and keep opportunity. that means having a vibrant free enterprise system that will promote opportunity, and it too heavy regulatory and government hand will limit that.
2:00 am
bill clinton had his best triumph during 1997 to 2000. of course he had a republican -- no, no, nafta -- trade liberalization is basically gone. it is to the president's own benefit, for his own legacy, if he tacks to the middle and results these big issues. it will disappoint his base, the republicans will disappoint their base pay but for his own legacy, it is better for him to tack to the center. >> when we see the income gaps showing up in the data, we have to look very closely at the education gaps. whether it is a federal issue or state issue or both, one can debate, but there is a serious crisis in terms of the outcome and disparity of educational attainment.
2:01 am
i think another one is the tax code. going back to what you are asking earlier, are we going to have a fight over the progressivity of the tax code or reforming the tax code on a revenue-neutral basis? we like the code the way it is, we just want to make a progressive -- is there a way to blend those issues and have a code that is more efficient, more pro-growth?
2:02 am
it might make the economy grow a little bit. >> the 2 or 3 things help the economy get ahead, neera. >> immigration reform. it does depress wages that you have millions of people undocumented. if you move people out of that status, that will have a positive benefit not just to people, but to wages being depressed. equity is a critical issue. we face a significant challenge -- in the short-term, medium- term, and long term, there is so much inequity in education. it is not something that the political process likes to discuss, but it is one in which we need to think more creatively about how -- it is not good for us in the medium or long-term.
2:03 am
>> nice to go last on this because i can think. [laughter] a really high-quality pre-k -- >> i agree. >> education for kids at the bottom of the income scale. this is supported by conservatives and liberals alike. a nobel-laureate economist who i think is associated with republicans has written eloquently about how critically important -- and there has got to be a significant government role. it will not happen without. and this is offbeat, but full employment. during my lifetime, the only time i've seen conditions improve is when the unemployment rate was 4 or below. i don't think that left to its own devices, even with economy better than the current one -- by the way, we have a lot of infrastructure problems.
2:04 am
we could marry a problem of infrastructure repairs in the public sector, and high unemployment -- >> this has been a great pair of panels thinking about the policy implications of the changing electorate that was vividly on display last night. you have been a terrific and -- what's the word -- endurance in this audience. [laughter] >> next, reaction to last night's election results from a group of conservative activists. we will also hear from harry reid and speaker of the house john boehner. post-election analysis continues tomorrow. will call hosts its impact conference. staffers and pollsters will look
2:05 am
at exit polls and the makeup of the next congress. that is at 10:15 a.m. eastern on c-span. charlie cook will break down the presidential election results and the country's changing demographic. live coverage beginning at 8:30 eastern. >> i need some help over here. >> he is trying to get himself up. he pulled himself out. >> he was issued today. he has taken 10 tablets. >> that is ridiculous to regret at some point, he could start breathing -- stop breathing.
2:06 am
>> we are -- we eneded up following him after the plane ride. he injured himself into a program at walter reed where they used acupuncture, meditation, and other techniques to wean him off of all the drugs he was on. to the program, he was able to walk out of walter reed on his own the 2 feet. i commend the military for allowing us to tell the story, the good and the bat. and for recognizing this problem that there is a problem of older -- over medication and they are looking for out of the box ideas to fix it. that is the whole pieces of the film. the metaphor. the status quo is not working and we need to look for outside
2:07 am
the box ideas carried >> more with the producer and director of "escape fire," the night at 8 on q &a. now reaction to last night's election results from conservative activists. we will hear from media research center president l. brent bozell. this is 40 minutes. >> good afternoon. thank you for coming. i am chairman of i will speak for a few minutes and introduce five nationally known recognized conservative leaders who will talk for a little bit. and it will open at 4 q &a. the battle to take over the republican party begins today.
2:08 am
the failed republican leadership should resign. out of last night's disaster comes good news. conservatives are saying never again are going to nominate a big government establishment republican for president. what is more, we will not have to. conservatives now have a deep bench of new national leaders and potential presidential candidates. last night's election a small government constitutional conservatives such as ted cruz, debbie fisher to the senate and the election of the governor of indiana and other boat rockers to the house portend that yesterday's defeat will spell the end and bake government republicanism -- of big government republicanism.
2:09 am
virginia's attorney general and 50 other members of the house boosted for conservative principles and voted against the debt ceiling deal. republicans never win president say unless they nationalize the election around conservative principles and a conservative agenda. we do not always win nationalized election but we never win unless the candidate presents two world views and romney failed to do that. he chose not to follow the path that led to republicans winning the white house seven out of the last 11 elections. republican national chairman, senatorial chairman, mitch mcconnell, and speaker john boehner and other republican leaders behind the epic of bucshon failure of 2012 should be replaced with leaders more in tune with the conservative base
2:10 am
of the republican party. likewise, i did it in a large bowl universe, consultants such as kral rove, down the campaign's senior adviser and neil newhouse would never be hired to run or consult on a national campaign again and no one would give a dime to their ineffective super pacs. was a deaths loss rattle to the republican party. the disaster of 2012 signals the beginning of the battle to take over the republican party and the opportunity to establish the gop as the party of small government constitutional conservatism. now we will hear from l. brent bozell, chairman of foramerica. >> thank you, richard.
2:11 am
good afternoon. i am also the founder and president of media research center. i will not comment on the press other than to say that nothing personal but your profession was atrocious this year. and the question is, to what degree did you have an impact in the atrocious in this? -- atrociousnes? we don't know. we will have more to say later. i am coming at the founder and chairman of foramerica. how is it so many republican and conservative pundits had it wrong last by? virtually every poll showed obama winning or within striking distance of virtually every battleground state. and somenunan, bnoselozell and the others so wrong?
2:12 am
maybe we cannot fathom the united states would willingly choose the path to destruction. in 2008, america did not know what she was buying. not so this year. obama's record and the agenda were there for all america to see. surely this time america would not buy it. but somehow, an act of us did and we have to ask ourselves, how this happened -- enough of us did and we have to ask ourselves, how did this happen? define or be defined. he hu succeed until project in the negative perception of his opponent and then set a positive one wins. given obama's atrocious record and given he had nothing to offer for the next four years except for more of the same, it should have been a cakewalk for romney to defy him.
2:13 am
when the republicans distinguish themselves from democrat, they win. when they run as democrats like, they lose. democrats always run to the left end of the political spectrum. republicans have always enjoyed the support of conservatives and that number is at least double the number of liberals. hence you support the conservative agenda, you win. obama did not support the conservative agenda, and neither did mitt romney. at the end of the day, conservatives or left out in the cold. it should have been a landslide for romney but he's a moderate in his campaign in part on a bizarre defense from the outset. republicans in congress perform more dismally, as possible. for the past four years, the conservatives have been telling
2:14 am
the republicans in congress that they would find -- they would tell us they would choose to fight but we take the senate in 2012. the conservatives want senate leadership that when was if it if would never materialize unless republicans took the fight to democrats and give conservatives a reason to galvanized behind them. we were ignored. time and again, but expressed to the house leadership that symbolic, meaningless boats are useless. only a forceful agenda to address the looming impediment crisis that threatens to bankrupt us while ridding america of the unnecessary, like pbs and npr, the immoral, like planned parenthood, would suffice. we suggested for good measure they demand and embrace -- an embrace to the return of constitutional government. we were told that when we take the senate, all things would be
2:15 am
done. and then they fumigated the room and left. the end result was predictable. it became clear the senate gop was going to do nothing. the projected a 8 seat pick up . that disappeared. the accomplished the impossible. a lost two seats. -- they lost two seats. it is time for conservatives to withhold further support, financial or otherwise, for a new republican party. unless and until the gop re- earns it. the following commitments must be made by them. one, and refusal to participate in in the lame duck session that further advances the leftist democratic agenda. a vote to defund obamacare as ware and -- a as well as
2:16 am
parents planted and pbs. a pledge not to raise any taxes on the rich or the middle-class or anyone else. aggressively support a cut cap and ballots agenda to terminate wasteful spending, cap spending to 2008 levels. aggressively support an agenda to undo the regulatory bad as in washington. permanently abn earmarked. reform the tax code. return the country to constitutional government. commit itself to a strong military, rejecting cuts from sequestration. embrace the strong socially and culturally conservative agenda in all its forms. the gop has excellent party platform. if you want our support, support your own platform first. thank you. >> jeff bell, represented the
2:17 am
american principles product. >> thank you. to follow up on one of his first point, it is important for conservatives to start by confronting the fact that the 2012 election was a historic victory for the american left. probably its greatest since 1936. unlike 1992, 1996, or 2008, the democratic national ticket little of anything to obscure the nature and content of its agenda. it would be surprising the obama administration did not interpret its victory as a mandate to retrieve a european- nizing of the american government. using judges and regulators to impose its will on substance ranging from same-sex marriage in all 50 states to green
2:18 am
curbing of the upsurge of the do you is a production of fossil fuels. gauling for conservatives is the defeat of the republican challenger for the u.s. senate. coupled with an apparent democratic victories in 25 out of a possible 33 races. hanging on to the house by a slightly reduced margin will be small consolation to those of us who hope for repeal of obamacare and broadbased tax and an atom reform. republicans have now lost four out of the last six presidential elections to . and five of the past six. in terms of popular vote. this followed freelance 5 victories in the year of ronald reagan that dominated the politics of the nation and the world from 1980-1988. to counter the lead this and successful sold by a reinvigorated american left, it
2:19 am
is hard to imagine when such a time would come. >> thank you. marjorie dannenfelser, president, susan b. anthony list. >> thank you. while a susan b. anthony had some bright lights last night and the retaining of michelle bachmann who was heavily targeted by the left and the return of steve king, those were bright spots. not a great night for the pro- life movement. despite our growing power in the country among women and almost every demographic, there was the gap between public opinion and electoral office that was not closed. election was an invitation to the republican party to return to fundamentals.
2:20 am
what are the fundamentals of the winning republican strategy? social policy, economic -- economic policy, and farm policy. fully embracing each one. we had one wobbly leg with about $1 billion behind on the republican side. from the top of the ticket and then affecting every other senate race in the country because of that influence. when fully encased, each of those policy areas, a real mandate is created and there is a resonance on the grass-roots level that brings public policy leaders into office so those three areas can be implemented. without fully engaging on each of those areas and on social policy, we leave votes on the table every single time. what we had was it the fact of truth on social issues.
2:21 am
-- was a de facto truce on social issues. republicans had the truce, obama launched a war over abortion. therefore he got to completely define what that issue was. what is it? rape. apportionment rate in the minds of many voters because -- abortion meant rape in the minds of many voters because the date was that in days. nis extreme position o abortion. none of these weaknesses were exploited in did in the debate. even allies to put forth during the debate went unaddressed. -- even the lies he put forth
2:22 am
during the debate went on a desperate to live that plant eric floyd -- that planned parenthood does mammograms. move it forward, the republican party and its candidates must expose and exploit those bottles filled days or risk alienating the tremendous and growing pro- life base. the year after year, an election after election, has delivered a winning incrementwa. war on women -- did it move women voters? if you look at the day tech, you have to say no. -- look at the data, you have to say now. after the lot of the war on omen theme, at the toop of
2:23 am
every debate, it did not stick. the women's vote was the wood. they were completely underestimated. has the pro life issue been repudiated? absolutely not. you cannot win a war which is not a case. you cannot be repudiated if no one has ever heard your issue. that is exactly what happened on the national level. this cannot happen again. we wil re-look at how we endorse and train candidates.
2:24 am
we're going back to the drawing board. next time out of the box, we will see a new set of candidates. one other point, on social issues. are the the big bird and? every state that thank you very much. and look forward to questions. >> thank you. next is jenny beth martin, national quarter -- national tea party patriots. >> for those of us to believe america was founded at the
2:25 am
greatest history -- greatest country in the history of the world, we wanted someone to fight for us. a fighter like ronald reagan who boldly championed america's principles. who inspired millions of independence. who fought his a let the opponents on the idea that america was a shining city upon a hill. what we got was a week, moderate candidate handpicked by the beltway elites. the president to loss is unequivocally on them. with a catastrophic loss of the republican elites, handpicked candidates, the tea party at the last, best hope america has to restore her from the principles. while the bay take longer to restore these principles with
2:26 am
president obama back in office, we are not going away. instead of the 100 years to take america to the place where we are today. it will take more than three and a half years to restore our constitution. we are going to keep fighting. we respect the constitution and we know for america to succeed, we need to continue educating americans on our core principles. on the importance of the constitution and why our solutions are essential for america's continued greatness. we fight for our principles, we win. our work again today. county by county, state by state, district by district, will fight for freedom the way others in america have fought for freedom in the past. we turn our attention back to
2:27 am
local and state governments and to congress to fight the battles that lie ahead, including balancing the budget, repealing obamacare, cutting the debt, holding the line on the debt ceiling. some things are worth fighting for. our constitution is worth fighting for. america is worth fighting for. we will continue to fight. >> thank you. grover norquist had accomplished at the last minute and will not be able to join us. next we will hear from alfred regnery of the -- the paul revere project. >> thank you. you work with a hundred conservative organizations around the country to help with a consistent message. what i want to tell the
2:28 am
conservative movement is like we have done before of the past 50 years, we stick to principles. the conservative principles are those that have been mentioned several times so far this afternoon. freedom, of course, a free economy, strong national security, traditional values. the rule of law and it harris to the constitution. those of the things the conservative movement was built on. starting in the early 50's. i should tell the conservative movement that elections come and go. this election certainly will be analyzed. as to why people voted the way they did, there are all sorts of reasons for that. it is the principle the conservatives believe adept which are the things that keep it going on the street and -- the straight and narrow and keep
2:29 am
it going. a couple things i think need to be done -- the conservative need to and will adopt a rather unified plan of products that need to be stuck to by all. it will be called no excuses. it is not a developed. -- it is now being developed. that will be things like no tax increases, no air marx, the funding obamacare. keeping the defense strong and in number of other things. the purpose will be to hold a leadership to speak to the fire. brent mentioned there is little satisfaction with the republican leadership in the house and what
2:30 am
no excuses will be designed to do is give conservatives in the house a list of things they can go to the leadership and say no more excuses. we will not hear anything that you have to say as they have done some in the times over the last couple of years but at these things done. the other thing the movement is to do is look ahead. we will look at this election and figure out why things happen the way they did with that and it's time to put mitt romney in the rearview mirror. there is a long bench on the republican side, many others who in the next go round will be there to and be the candidate. we need to stop looking at those people early on and organizing behind them so we have a clear view of where we are going with those candidates.
2:31 am
then the view of the senate takeover by republicans as any time in the last 30 or 40 years. the number of republicans that will be up for election as opposed to the democrats after two more years of obama and harry reid. my guess is the american people will be ready for a significant change in the senate. if republicans can take back the senate in 2014, they will make the last two years of the obama administration and very miserable time for the president. we look forward to taking your questions and take you for coming. rex thank you. -- >> thank you. open for questions. >> he bought up social issues. can give more specific examples of how much money could have campaigned more conservatively?
2:32 am
>> i will take the first one. i did not think there's any question that he took all the right stance. that is not the argument i would make. he took all the right positions we were all happy to spread those commitments around. the problem is not communicating on the national stage what his actual positions were. when he was attacked, he let the attacks stick. not nationalizing the issue was a problem.
2:33 am
>> i agree with your basic point. it is important for the republican nominee to have conservative positions on social issues but if he does not offend those positions in a presidential debate, it is a problem. the example that occurred to me is when governor romney was going down a list of flaws in obamacare, he did not mention the hss mandate. if it were had better known among voters like places -- voters in places like the midwest, it would have hurt obama. it is one thing for boaters to know that did not like the hss mandate, it is something else of the are not sure it is a major
2:34 am
part of the presidential debate or the program of the can did it should he be elected. it was not the positions he took, but his failure to elevate them when it seemed appropriate in terms of the national flow of campaigning. >> republicans once had a healthy share of the hispanic vote in america. >> i absolutely believe
2:35 am
republicans in congress should get involved in a comprehensive immigration reform. dewitt something for the 11 million people here illegally, and this kind of a threshold issue -- doing something for the 11 million people here illegally, this kind of threshold issue. i would also argue that social issues, they are among the most pro-family, pro-work voting populations. the failure to use those issues and try to win over hispanic voters was a major lack in the republican effort in 2012. >> i think you answered your own question when he said hispanic family values. or hispanic families.
2:36 am
we were all struck after the 2008 election when the republican leadership told us there were two things that have to happen -- and needed to be out reach two hispanics and blacks at republicans have to get away from the social issues. if you look at the only thing that one in 2008, it was the marriage amendment and the california. it was a cross over of hispanics and black pastors. that and the republicans. rather than look at hispanics and blacks from the standpoint of what the white people want to look at, why not ask them what their -- they're interested in? why not look at their values and cultural agenda and their priorities and just that? that is where there is great
2:37 am
common ground. i did understand republicans offered their own shadow when it comes to that. -- i do not understand why republicans are afraid of their own shadow when it comes to that. >> there were several ballot initiatives for a marriage -- for gay marriage. [unintelligible] >> him this is an issue that -- this is an issue that is very much under debate. there were 42 states yesterday that every -- there were four states yesterday the approved. what would be disastrous is it the obama administration impose a solution on all 50 states that involved ruling doma
2:38 am
unconstitutional and that cutting off debate at a time when yes, the other side made gains, but the pro marriage side is winning victories. something that is unique to the northeast and the pacific coast as a popular based movement should then be opposed -- imposed on the midwest and every other part of the country which have voted to prohibit it. >> i take my hat off to the democrats for supporting the principles. they came ready for a fight. they did not back down one bit when it -- when it came to their perspective on social issues whether it was gay rights or the abortion. where were the republicans?
2:39 am
why didn't republicans show up to the battle? have republicans showed up, karl rove spent money on his millions, maybe it would admit it difference. >> this loss is similar to why the republicans fight against health care bill failed. that was a failure to put resources and energy into working on each constituency that could have voted down the bill. the pro-life democrat been a great example. about $1 million out of $80 million that it spent have focused on that, maybe those guys would have voted differently and we would not even be talking about obamacare today.
2:40 am
>> you have the fiscal cliff deadline. how does it change? does your approach change post election? >> there is a demographic change. we all recognize that. there is a school of people that work at the demographics and said that if mitt romney had won this election, it would probably be the last election and republican would win nationally under these rules and principles. the numbers are significant, there is no question about it. i think republicans have to address that one way or another. i had dinner with arthur davis, lago who outlined -- not long ago who outlined some things.
2:41 am
what blacks and hispanics believe and what they want and the candidates. if republicans did not start listening to that, it will be a long time before they win. >> regarding the fiscal cliff and the economic issues, i think what we saw last night is people voted for the status quo. he did not see a clear distinction between either of the parties so they went with what they know. i think that is what we will see in the next few weeks and two years. more of what we have seen in the last two years. >> the share richard murdock's
2:42 am
view that compromise is when democrats come around to the republicans' point of view on big issues? >> that is something i feel very strongly about. i debate is it seems like every day. if i have a home i want to sell for $200,000 and you want to buy it for $170,000, there is a compromise somewhere there. but if i want to buy your home for $170,000 and you do not want to sell it, i did not understand the compromise is here. conservatives and tea party people are tired of republican leaders compromising with democrats which leads to the continual growth of government. why can a compromise on how much we are going to reduce -the size of government -- why can't we compromise on how much we're going to reduce the size of government? we are sick and tired of seeing
2:43 am
republican leaders compromise with democrats and grow the size of government. >> is this simple formula. -- it is a simple formula. when you compromise in their direction, you lose, when a compromise in our direction, you win. >> he was sick and tired of arguing about it all the time. there is no place and into the gestation of the baby that is protected. that is the president's position. we went from common ground try to find a compromise to where he made very clear what his position is. that is that there is no point in the continuing that he would protect on an unborn child. so there is no compromise there.
2:44 am
it became very clear that compromise was tougher i try to bring you about my point of view. >> what is the state of the tea party now? it's the tea party so-called dead? where is it going? >> four years ago, we did not even exist. three and a half years ago, there were 22 of us on a conference call. in it -- and two weeks ago, there was a poll in the ap, where 40 million people would be voting based on the tea party principles and identify with us. so nothing for years ago to 40 million people. it is not the death of the tea party. we are promoting our values of
2:45 am
fiscal responsibility, limiting government and a free-market against two campaigns that have been campaigning for at least the past six years. we are new, we are not going away. we will continue to grow and get better. >> to put a fine a point on that, i cannot agree more. because of the tea party and the conservative movement working at the grass-roots level all the way up to the republican presidential nominee in four years, within that time tea partiers will take over the republican party in four years. taking for coming. -- thank you for coming. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]
2:46 am
>> tomorrow on washington journal, the christian science monitor and up to set of the hill discussed the impact of the election on the house and senate. then a look at what is next with a congress with white house correspondent scott wilson of the washington post and margaret colom of bloomberg news. but america's 29th in the speed of its internet. the pitahaya as prices in the world by far prepay 30 times -- more prices in the world
2:47 am
by far. in france, you pay $38 us and get worldwide calling to 70 countries, worldwide television ander internet is 20 times faster up loading and sometimes faster downloading and you're paying less than 25 cents on the dollar. all these other countries understand a fundamental principle -- in the 19th century, canals and railroads were the key to industrial growth. as the 20th century came along, it was highways, airports that were crucial to economic growth. now it is the information superhighway -- highway. >> david k. johnston on the ways
2:48 am
corporations tried to rob you in line, saturday night at ten eastern this weekend on "book tv." >> c-span tries to cover both sides of the issue. the moderators do a good job of stay detached and not offering their own opinions. your comprehensive about covering the different house and senate and different public affairs centers here in d.c. that i would not normally be exposed to. watches cspan on pan>> he comcast. brought to you as a public service breyer television provider. -- by your television provider. >> you were talking about the
2:49 am
47%, at. i was extremely offended by that. i am 24-years old. i am homeless. before i lost my actors, i was able to vote for obama. i am now -- before i lost my address, i was able to vote for obama. i still want to keep working and now i'm able to go to school with a star in january with the potential to go the law school. i think romney lost a lot of people and the columbus because of that 47%. caller: i am really upset. i cannot believe we again that mr. obama and the white house. -- in the white house. i am a nurse. it's been hard in the valley of finding a job. home health has completely --
2:50 am
patients are being [unintelligible] due to medicare cuts. you see it and you go to the grocery store and do you see these ladies with their purses and they pay with [unintelligible] caller: it is a very dark day. i am shocked at how this man could have won again. i feel that the election, so many people are out of work, i am an executive in this community. i lost a job and was able to find a job but there are no jobs. the woman who called before, the situation with obama with our troops and with our embassy, i think he handled improperly. i would not be surprised before
2:51 am
he gets ready to give his inaugural speech that there might not be an impeachment trial that starts. i think the country is more divided today than ever before. i think he was able to win because so many people have moved to the bottom side of the scale. because there is no work in this country and it will not get better. caller: have wanted to address what i believe romney did not win. i think people realize we did not want someone to just blame just lie to our face. was called out by obama numerous times. everybody says obama attacked him in the beginning with the ads but he made the people aware. he let us know who we were dealing with some eight -- dealing with from the gate.
2:52 am
the republican party needs to stop pointing figures - fingers at obama. we are where we are because they cannot come together as one and help the people of america. caller: everybody is cut in the president down for the people being on social security and all that. i broke my back 10 years ago and i am on disability. daughter depend on that. i would give up everything now if i could get a job. it is not the president, it is the insurance companies that these companies have that will not hire me because i am to have a risk. when i go down the street and the people that know me, the slack i get, it is uncalled for. if people would just start --
2:53 am
going and making an effort to making the world better instead of trying to cut it down all the time, we might get somewhere. caller: i am saddened today. i cannot believe the american people did not vote for a man with a proven record. so what, he's rich. he knows what he's doing. he gave to charity. he cared about the america people and the media feel the spirit -- failed us. we'd ask ourselves what causes -- we need to ask ourselves -- saying he did not think he would be heard over the mic. when he said wait until i am
2:54 am
reelected and have more flexibility. that is scary to me. people have closed eyes. >caller: i started out as a flaming liberal 40 years ago and over the years, i came to realize that in the last analysis when you are a liberal, it is all about what can your country do for you? not what you can do for your country. what we have seen here is a putting of the constitution into the strap heap of history. the president has covered in an unconstitutional manner and we the people have said that is fine. caller: 11 times when our elected officials are so -- a lot of times when our elected officials are so irresponsible, the government is not one like our household. it is ridiculous for someone to
2:55 am
use that. in our household, we did not have certain things available to us. the point is we have to all think on a grander scale and said the president started something that was worse than anyone ever thought it was and was able to get us to where we are just buy the things he was able to do because the congress was not working with him. we all need to work together. host: we invite you to continue the conversation as the final returns come in you can weigh in on facebook and c-span3 correct coming up, reaction to tuesday's election results -- facebook and c-span. >> coming up, reaction to
2:56 am
tuesday's election results. cost analysis continues tomorrow -- post analysis continues to moderate both parties will look at the exit polls and the makeup of the next congress. that is at ten o'clock -- that is at 10:15. then a breakdown of the presidential election result of the country's changing demographics. we will have live coverage beginning at 8:30 eastern. >> i need some help here. he just rolled himself out. he was issued today. he is taken ten tablets. >> that is ridiculous.
2:57 am
>> that is why he is a little higher right now. >> at some point he could stop reading if you took too much more critics -- too much narcotis -- narcotics. >> we ended up following him after this plane ride. he injured himself into an innovative program at walter reed with a used acupuncture, meditation, other techniques to ween him off of the drugs he was on. he was able to walk out of walter reed and his own 2 feet. i commend the military for allowing us to tell the story, both the good and the bad and for recognizing this problem. that there is this problem of over medication. and they are looking for an out of the box ideas on how to fix
2:58 am
it. that is the whole pieces of the film. the metaphor of escape fire. the status quo is of working and many to look for outside the box ideas. >> more with the producer and director of "escape fire" sunday at 8 on "q &a." >> last night, democrats held on to their senate majority. they will have 53 seats in the next congress. harry reid talked-about the election results. after him, we will hear from republican john boehner. >> i am i kidding, i am glad to be back. good to see everybody. it was a late night, early morning. it is clear we're going to increase our majority.
2:59 am
but the results show a number of things we are the party of diversity. the their results from all over the country. i am looking for a two -- looking forward to working with so many great senators. i came to the senate, barbara mikulski was it as far as women. now about a third of arf caucus is going to be women -- of our caucus is going to be women. remarkable work. but the election is over and we have enormous challenges ahead of us. right here. and we have to sit down and go to work on it now. not wait.
3:00 am
this was the message the american people sent from all over and that is they are tired of these partisan gridlock. tired of things i have one goal, to defeat obama. that is gone. obama was reelected overwhelmingly.
3:01 am
3:02 am
3:03 am
3:04 am
3:05 am
3:06 am
3:07 am
3:08 am
3:09 am
3:10 am
3:11 am
3:12 am
3:13 am
3:14 am
3:15 am
3:16 am
3:17 am
3:18 am
3:19 am
3:20 am
3:21 am
3:22 am
3:23 am
3:24 am
3:25 am
3:26 am
3:27 am
3:28 am
3:29 am
3:30 am
3:31 am
3:32 am
3:33 am
3:34 am
3:35 am
3:36 am
3:37 am
3:38 am
3:39 am
3:40 am
3:41 am
3:42 am
3:43 am
3:44 am
3:45 am
3:46 am
3:47 am
3:48 am
3:49 am
3:50 am
3:51 am
3:52 am
3:53 am
3:54 am
3:55 am
3:56 am
3:57 am
3:58 am
3:59 am
4:00 am
4:01 am
4:02 am
4:03 am
4:04 am
4:05 am
4:06 am
4:07 am
4:08 am
4:09 am
4:10 am
4:11 am
4:12 am
4:13 am
4:14 am
4:15 am
4:16 am
4:17 am
4:18 am
4:19 am
4:20 am
4:21 am
4:22 am
4:23 am
4:24 am
4:25 am
4:26 am
4:27 am
4:28 am
4:29 am
4:30 am
4:31 am
4:32 am
4:33 am
4:34 am
4:35 am
4:36 am
4:37 am
4:38 am
4:39 am
4:40 am
4:41 am
4:42 am
4:43 am
4:44 am
4:45 am
4:46 am
4:47 am
4:48 am
4:49 am
4:50 am
4:51 am
4:52 am
4:53 am
4:54 am
4:55 am
4:56 am
4:57 am
4:58 am
4:59 am
5:00 am
>> you think they have as much leverage as they think they have? >> that is a good question. it is amazing that after all this that we are back with president obama, the house has changed a few seats in the senate has basically the same composition. we ended up right back where we started. i think the leverage -- the bush
5:01 am
tax cuts are due to expire. that is the big leveraged. they are going away. if you want to keep them, you have to do something. i think that gives the president ed. i do not know how the fiscal cliff will play out. if i had to guess, i think it will use duct tape and chicken wire and kleenex to get through the next few months if they can get a grand bargain between thanksgiving and christmas shopping. i will be curious to hear with the congressman has to say about that. i think where we are heading his kicking the can down the road for a while the net push for tax
5:02 am
reform. can you get there? i cannot know. it was a tough call in 1986. it is tougher now for a lot of reasons. the fiscal issues themselves on the composition of congress. i think that is where we are heading. tax reform is the only way to get the additional revenue without dramatically hiking rates which i do not think anybody is inclined to doing. i think the president has on balance more leverage but it will be a long process. >> and do you agree? >> yeah. that does not mean it is going to happen. i have lived through to lame ducks with the control changed. the democrats won control of sun that -- the senate by defection
5:03 am
and the republicans won it back. then the lame duck with the democrats came in in -- where the democrats came in in 2006. speaking of the senate, in both instances the senate leader prior to the lame duck, had a hole in -- had a whole agenda. after the election, we can work this all out. the psychological impact ruin both agendas. tom-show could not get anything d e that he wanted -- tom-ro
5:04 am
adchell connected anything done that he wanted. home.going goodbye. there was nothing you could do about it. the question as, what is the psychology of this election going to do to the best laid plans of harry reid and speaker boehner and the president'? i do not think any of whom expected when you just described. the great surprise is that there was no surprise. i do not expect this lame duck to do very much worthwhile. i think they're going to pass a continuing resolution. they do have the fiscal cliff that they have to deal with and there will be a calibration of
5:05 am
who gets hurt the most if we allow the economy to go over the cliff. if nothing is that, the economy will go over a cliff. who gets blamed? blame the republicans now but democrats won the election. the voters are not always rational in the way they hand out blame. there is a lot of calculation going on right now at the leadership levels in both houses in both parties with the white house briefing a huge sigh of relief. but now we're stuck with this for four more years. how do we deal with this? i do not think anybody knows how the lame duck is really going to work rather -- other than a continuing resolution. a kick the can down the road kind of resolution. the question is, how many things will be added to that train as it is moving through and what
5:06 am
shape will they be? >> as the senator just laid out, this could get pretty messy, even if they have a solution with duct tape and kleenex. doesn't that affect the leverage here for the president? he is the president. does he want to start his second term with an economy that is already fragile and that risk of going into another recession? >> lame duck sessions are well named. they are always lame. they use that word for a good reason. there are two problems -- one, there's no timetnowo, everybody is either angry or related -- one, there's no time. two, everybody is either angry or elated.
5:07 am
i am very skeptical that they can do any big deal. if i had to predict, i would say one of two outcomes of the most possible -- kick the can down the alley, unwind the sequestration for a short amount of time, and the same with the tax code. so that you would suspend toting rid of the tzax cut keep the economy moving in the right direction. the other possibility which is harder but may be possible is a many deal -- mini deal reduces spending such an amount of the sequestration of both the defense and domestic side and find some revenue raisers to pay
5:08 am
for that. so it gets much harder because you get into all those questions of what is going to be sequestered and what will not be sequestered at how the weak get some revenue? let me go to your first question -- leverage and mandate. when you're talking about big fiscal issues of the kind we are talking about here, my view is that nobody has a mandate and nobody has leverage. there is nothing good in any of this politically. that is what you have to understand. for my politician standpoint, and member of congress in either party, at the end of the day they do not want to vote for any of the stuff. because it is all that. it is all toxic.
5:09 am
it is poison to cut programs or raise taxes. or even to tax reform. let's go back to 1986. we did tax reform and we were purposely being revenue neutral which means we were not going to pick up and more revenue but in the process of broadening the base, you're taking tax breaks away from some people to give lower tax rates to everybody. that is the unhappy political exercise. there is nothing good in this. this is all that -- all bad. whenever they get down to try to do a big deal, and i hope they do for all the obvious reasons, it is going to take a hike at the patriotism on the part of
5:10 am
republicans and democrats to get the necessary votes to get this through because they are going to have to cut spending, cut entitlements, and raise taxes in some ways. and that will be political pain beyond your belief. they will have to get members in some cases that give up their political career to both -- to vote for this thing. >> congressman, each side thinks they have leverage in john boehner said earlier this week that he sees no need to raise taxes on upper-income households. that would be bad for small businesses and showed no indication of a willingness to compromise. will he need to compromise ultimately on that issue? >> anything that prior to yesterday, i think we should
5:11 am
start with a big discount rate. most americans have discounted them totally and that is what politicians must worry about. i believe it is not a typical but after an election, there is an upsurge of intelligence in washington. whether they collectively behave that way is not obvious. short lived. i think the important thing here is that -- i doubt there will be a deal, the grand bargain and the lame duck. the imperative is such on the economy that there will need to be something, some indication this will be solved to the
5:12 am
combined irresolution that commits them on paper that they will resolve it. the the thing that happened is it set it up so you cannot avoid the [unintelligible] without major compositions. this is a good position to get the congress in. you have to get them back into a corner. that is what they manage to do. if we get past tenerife first, the truth is all of this kicks in, the cuts and increases in taxes. what position are you in then? a brand new world where you can at least the back to your friends. now i will be able to restore some stocks -- some tax rate cuts to you. i will restore this expenditures
5:13 am
that went off the table, restore tax cut. not as much as i promised you or you wanted but now i am a afferent -- now mi am in different position. the american people have had it up to here and both parties have to take that into account. the great thing that happened which was awful for the economy was the fact that every faction lost. none could walk away and tell their followers we did the right thing, america is ready to follow us. america was not ready to fall you then and not in the fall on the basis of that vote. some people will still be where they are but a lot of people will not. the most important thing to remember about elections -- the
5:14 am
keep getting this calculation. elections do not only change the people at the office but they also change the minds of people who get reelected. flopoes not mean they flip but i bet a lot of those freshmen republicans came a dented differently. everybody learns attentive this process. -- learns in this process. certain issues now, and to -- now come into that rubric. that dog won't hunt. the republican congress is not going to have 40 votes on tak ing money away from -- the
5:15 am
opposite kind of thing. that will not happen the same way. >> congressman, you have to imagine there has been a lot of soul-searching at the white house about how to approach this differently from how the white house approached their debt and limit step of -- stand off in 2011. what do you think they will do differently? >> i hope they will engage more members over a longer amount of time. when george bush wanted to have a budget summoned to the 1990, he kept calling the leaders from congress down and saying we need to have a summit. and we agreed we need to have a summit. he said everything but taxes. i give a speech intended houston
5:16 am
when i got nominated. i said read my lips, no new taxes. so we cannot do taxes. and we said then we are not coming. everett has to be on the table. this went on for three or four meetings. finally he said yes, we will put taxes on the table. i get the joke. he headed a press release and walked out of the white house and he was standing next to me. he was going foot to foot. was really nervous. as it mr. president, what is wrong? he knew the political risk he was taking. leadership is taking on your own side, not the other side. that is what he was doing. i did not think he lost the election but who knows. but that is leadership. dam it went from bad to about
5:17 am
six months of negotiating -- then we went from about 6 months of negotiating. we got all the committee chairs, all the ranking member theory would you have to understand is anybody can say we will cut medicare by x. the question is not what you're going to cut it by. the question is how are you going to change the program to get the savings? you need the committees which to the work it and the congress to the get down to the brass tacks of what does it mean to cut ex program by why? so we went through all of that. we still did not have an agreement. i said to tom foley and george mitchell, we have to get people off campus because the press is
5:18 am
saying we hear you're going to cut medicare. we never want to say that. so we took them to enters the air force base for -- andrews air force base for a week, day and night. had the whole cbo group, the omb group, the white house staff and we went over all these things again. i had to eat a hot fudge sundae every night with bob dole. >> what this sacrifice. >> am i came out on the floor and we argued it for a week on the floor and a loss. that is how hard this is to do. then retrieved it and the less -- we tweaked it a little less
5:19 am
semifinal they got it passed. that was a minor amount of money compared to what they need to do now. it was like child's play. i guess my advice to any whitehouse, in the leadership, is you have to deal with 535 people. you cannot make a deal with the 4 leaeders. you need 218 in the house and 60 in the senate. so you have to include all of those members in the intellectual process of what it actually means to do you are doing. so they take ownership. when you watch the deficit commission do is work, tom colbern is a good example, probably when he started the process he was tough for a lot
5:20 am
of things but by the end of it, he became a real advocate for doing this for the good of the country. that is where you need to bring enough people to get it done. >> some other pluses in there. the white house obviously has more experience. you have got to have attend the place that kind of -- to even have a chance at this. now simpson bowles has legs. not that congress is about to adopt those proposals but they have shown a path for a theory they had been widely discussed in elite circles in this country with many people who did not endorse but they kept in the campaign.
5:21 am
that have led the -- lead a foundation on which you can build now. you have to do that. that is part of the intellectual groundwork. it gives a basis on which you can begin to build something. >> senator, in terms of the process, the congressman brings of a good point. but the debt limit fatah, the was the talk of bringing everybody together at camp david or seven like that. neither the president are john boehner were enthusiastic about that idea. what happens that were these meetings between the president and john maynard. -- john boehner.
5:22 am
should there be a meeting that basis stakeholders to the table? >> certainly, there should. whether it fits the pattern -- i think the president ought to be having some long conversations with himself as to how he does that. i hope the president has a red woodward's book, "the price of politics." i teach at the university of utah and i have assigned it to my sister -- i have decided to my students. assigned it to my students. ot because he is
5:23 am
the socialist type that all republicans claim he is. it got to know him in the senate and then never found out about him until after laws informed me. he was not willing, or from his experience base, not capable of the kind of creative get down, make this thing work. he was still the college professor. let's talk this through. this process does not work that way.
5:24 am
he only listens to david axelrod addend of the beginning. i hope he has learned by virtue of this campaign yes, you won, and that is great but if you're going to cover, you have to listen to people who have credentials other than those that you conferred upon them. you have to give those people in place at the table. i would suggest to him that in addition to the kinds of things that have been talked about, here, it widened the -- a widening base. you ought to have some people outside of congress sitting at the table at the summit.
5:25 am
but the people who would say these of the real consequences of what happens if you do not do anything. during the last thing we put together, a report on what would happen at the debt ceiling was not raised. then took it on the hill and handed it out to members -- key members of the party. it was that it -- not a partisan idea. a lot of people say we had no idea. so he's the president, he has a convenient power that no one
5:26 am
else on the planet has. i would say to him, you have to spread the number of opportunities for people to sit at the table and that would say you give them credit beyond those that an elected. >> what lessons the president obama learn from past presidents. >> it is a good question. abhisit who you point to some of these positions and administration makes a difference.
5:27 am
you have players in these key positions to a bin various -- you could have tarp moment coming up. in the financial crisis, the tarp rescue package failed on this first go round. the stock market continued its precipitous fall. it is possible u.s. and the like that coming up soon. what is very blaze -- congress ifs there are a lot of issues on
5:28 am
the table. but all the panelists are talking about, at least during lame duck, is a partial solution. is there a substantial risk that some of these things could get done every year. or things do not get them because it is too difficult to do all this in a short period time. however, that is part of the expectation that this is a heightened item. if you have to get into this the next four or six months, nothing could guarantee that. it ended january, all this money is withdrawn from the economy infinitely.
5:29 am
several years of chaos and bringing in a delicate that happen -- in a dollar does not happen. there is that opportunity to stretch that out. if you do not do something about it in the fall, he will do something about amt before people pay their full share taxes. >> you are exactly right but the debt ceiling of looming and that will get this right back into the same vote as we were before. >> let's say they believe right before christmas to go home and say our differences are too
5:30 am
great. by then the market started the panic and americans are wondering whether their taxes will go up. are there risks to that? >> there are some technical problems. but i think the likelihood this thing gets kicked down the alley, i think the markets will put up with it and things will proceed. there is one risk worth mentioning. i do not think it will happen but in this case, could happen. to kick the can down the alley or get -- down the road, you have to have the acquiescence of
5:31 am
the minority in the senate and the majority in the house. you will hear some histrionics over the next couple of weeks. democrats saying less -- lets lessen. we re my going to cut these domestic problems. you'll have some republicans say let's cut all these programs, let people understand what we're facing. i heard some of them say we have to tear of the credit crunch spcut the credit cards. if that is happening, the money does that get sucked out of the economy at once but you could have a couple of bad days on wall street. can have the market drop by
5:32 am
1000, 2000 pounts. it was one bad day in the market, bottom back to town to get tarpon done. if that happens, i did the market reacted badly. then we would see what happened. >> who was the that the images and that will emerge as key players -- who is in the party that will emerge as key players? >> i have nothing to add on that. you got it right. biden is the one member of the
5:33 am
administration who understand the cause was better than anybody. he was the go to that when we have the last time that. he called me and we discussed it and stayed in touch turned the whole thing. basically, that will work out one on 132 people who know each other. i did not see this lame duck being to let different. >> another member of the administration through all these wars -- 1990 and then the clea -- clinton administration and that is leon panetta. henderson of the budget deeply in all >> .
5:34 am
to use a term not in a director sense because it came from the democrats, he said the president is a drive by senator terry -- senator. oanetta -- panetta was in the house long enough to understand it. they did not have a congressional relations key that had the institutional memory i think they needed. they have a fourth to get -- have been forced to get [unintelligible] >> i would like to go to the audience questions now.
5:35 am
>> taking so much for your great presentation. i'm wondering how hurricane sandy and in need for fema will impact the [video clip] . and if you think the cr that goes through march now will be folded into that. >> the in corporations process has not only been broke down, it n. such those decisions will not be made by the lame duck on with
5:36 am
geordies on inside. it will be made by both sides. john been on the house side. the worst way to legislate and appropriate is to put it in the hands of one man. but that is the way it is. i can i give you any guidance. talk to john boehner and see what he would agree to. but there will be no logical appropriations process with respect to those issues in the lame duck. >> who will be among the frist -- first of the cabinet secretaries asked to the the id ministration? >> i will refer to my democratic
5:37 am
party. i have some nominations. usually people off their resignation. my sense is a lot of the folks of artists and their living so that probably will take place. given the fiscal cliff, is there a need to provide socratic the -- to provide some clarity sooner than later? >> yes. >> how soon? >> tomorrow. [laughter] the markets are not freaking out right now. , you cannott's
5:38 am
count on washington as a general philosophy. they're not sitting there with brest say are they going to do. their expectations are low at the moment. >> based upon your experience in congress, do you see and opportunity for tax reform >> it is a good question. obviously it could be part of
5:39 am
their grand bargain. it could be the vehicles and provide some revenue as part of the overall solution terry whatever ratio they are looking for a dentist spending cuts as opposed to revenue. as i said a minute ago, even when we get it in 1986 and it is revenue neutral, it was very hard to do. exceedingly hard to do. you're taking on all the lobbies. we start with the first bill on this than ronald reagan picked up and really carry it. we got it done in a bipartisan way. and we did the original bill, we took out the mortgage and
5:40 am
charitable deduction. we took out everything. and because the rates down. was 10, 15, 25. we thought it was a valid bill and it was. so we all have the real estate people and all the mortgage bankers. all the university presidents and priests said you can i get rid of that. the only thing we hung on to state and local income tax. and then to the end we were able to lower individual rates by taking more money from the corporate side.
5:41 am
to be competitive, we have to get it down. so this is going to be really difficult exercise. if you are combining it with cutting entitlements and defense, even over tenure period, i just think it's a br idge too far. maybe i am wrong. i hope i am wrong. it could be, if they get really ambitious, it could be an important part of a grand bargain. >> one of the most important things is what is the added to the people in washington and the business community elsewhere over where the economy is? there is a lot of other thinking that says we are at a different
5:42 am
place in our history, on this economy and we have to take much more seriously the allocation of our resources and the impact to the tax code on investment and consumption in this country. that is -- you are not going to get just reduction and get rid of deductions as a way to pay for it. he might look for another stream of income. the carbon tax, proposition.
5:43 am
if it enabled congress to get other things they want as important, it might be taken stop and start something moderately or modestly that goes over time. >> what you always look for is the least worst alternative. that -- you would not think that would ever see the light of day but as part of getting rid of the big problem, you can include some things like that. the thing you have to remember is that figure are going to get a big compromise at the end of it, everybody has to be completely angry. and paid the bill completely. >> on that note time to wrap up.
5:44 am
i want to thank all of you. this was a very interesting discussion and we are heading into an interesting time. >> that may quickly introduce our panel. elaine chao, heritagea foundation,lex. alex birll, meera, the center for american progress, and jared bernstein.
5:45 am
formerly the chief economic adviser to joe biden. we should separated you two. >> today is the date for having progressive family. >> i want to talk about some of the specifics of merging -- emerging. obviously we are to a position with the cup -- country has set back a democratic president, republican house and the large democratic majority in the senate. when you look at that new configuration of fiscal stress is barreling down on us, what does that point toward that this point? does this make some kind of deal more or less likely?
5:46 am
>> i think it makes a deal a little more likely which makes it not as likely as i will like it to be. i cannot meet this gets resolved before january 1. -- i do not mean this gets resolved a fortune refers. by the way, i saw the market's thinking today -- tanking today. it's like they were expecting a different outcome. if it did begin to take shape and look like it could really have, be viable during the lame duck, it does not have to pass during the lame duck to avoid the recession eric attraction --
5:47 am
recessionary traction. i am not sure about this. i am still digesting this like everybody else. i am way over tired but it seems to me that a newly reelected president for new president gets more stuff than he or she wants then someone who has been toiling away for years. feeling more optimistic there will be enough, but in the room. we have done a lot already. over the next 10 years, have already been scored. and new revenue.
5:48 am
>> after this election, can you foresee a four -- foresee a circumstance where republicans would accept a deal? >> the republicans have already made that overturned during the super committee. it was not heralded much by the press. the republicans made an offer to increase revenues. at that time, it was not accepted. i would like to start pressing i have been through administrations and congratulations to the other side for winning. the american people have spoken with a second term as hard. lot unexpected surprises pop up. governing is hard. this president has been campaigning for the last 18 months.
5:49 am
this is a booklet was always going to be addressed but the results of the election and the margin will have to determine the complexion of the deal going forward. the wood of left a mess for the republicans to deal with -- they would have left a mess for the republicans to deal with. there is more incentive for the democrats to take a longer solution point of view on a pressing the fiscal cliff. >> what do you see? >> short term versus long-term scenario. i do not think we will see a lot in the next few weeks other than the beginning of a remarkable deal.
5:50 am
the democrats i think have more of an incentive to be engaged in how that process plays out in 2013. nunnelee moves a deadline of the fiscal cliff -- not only moves forward the deadline for the fiscal cliff, but sets them in motion. the key for republicans is the rates themselves. in the moment the end of this past debate, i think both parties are ready to shift to talk more about the tax burden. their ways to get there.
5:51 am
there are ways to get more revenue in without having to raise taxes picric the president ran as explicitly as any candidate ever on raising taxes on the top? >> i think we could tie this to the previous conversation. it was unprecedented that a candidate ran on raising taxes. it was in iowa. his last closing remarks, he focused on these issues. it was an issue that was important to the coalition that elected him.
5:52 am
it is not just promises made. of all the issues, this is one that was clearest. it was one that they could really only focus on. the challenge for the conversation in washington is that the republican party is in an odd position because their posture is let us not do this thing that is the most popular item to do. let's tax everybody or some other people. the president has a very strong position. it is also a very popular thing to do. if anything, we have a grand bargain that moves away from the politically popular thing to do to was more politically difficult -- politically difficult things to do. as a progressive, i am not sure why the president would want to do that.
5:53 am
why give -- when all the republican party will ask and to do are things that are less popular on taxes. >> do you see any way that he signs an extension of the bush tax cuts for all corners? >> i find that awfully hard to see. i want to talk about the economics of this. it is interesting.
5:54 am
what i think i hear alex and the secretary saying -- correct me if i'm wrong -- something that is very popular, tax reform, which is that, yes, we need a new revenue and we are willing to bring in revenue to the table, but it has got to be broad based and not from increasing their rates. the problem there -- it is like mitt romney's math problem. you cannot get the revenue you need just on the 250-plus folks. you have to go below that -- >> in terms of narrowing exemptions. >> raising taxes on "the middle class," households under $250,000, which happens to be 90% of all households -- i am not sure that formulation works. this is a great economic argument -- i am not nearly as obsessive as the economic impact of going from the top rate -- basically resetting to the clinton years, where not only did poverty fall steeply but we had a budget surplus. broaden the base, lower the rates -- in this climate, you get a tiny broader base and tiny lower rates and it is not going
5:55 am
to work. >> on the base broadening question, one of the things on the president's budget is a base-broadening proposal -- >> raises $500 billion over 10 years. >> doesn't lower the rates. >> but the framework of having a base-broadening -- how you get there -- i was asking the question, would the republicans accept revenue? you are asking if they would enough revenue -- >> to stabilize the issue. >> i think the president's math is faulty as well. even if you tax "rich people" in the country, that will not close the deficit. it was not a clear mandate, and the turnout was quite low --
5:56 am
>> but if there is not -- >> clearly there is not great enthusiasm. >> we are very closely divided at this point and you have the president standing here and the house republican starting here, what is the place that you can envision -- >> we don't know, because the president has not stepped up to take leadership to he has been campaigning for 18 months, with a note to disrespect. people on the hill are looking for leadership. >> just be fair, he has a budget proposal. he put forth a budget proposal, it did a speech on a, it is in his budget. it gets $4 trillion in deficit reduction.
5:57 am
>> paid for the sequester. >> the idea that he has been out campaigning -- >> he has to bring members along. he is the only member of his party -- >> the critical question -- >> in some ways -- >> the republicans' offer was not accepted, let's not forget that. >> we are in reality where, without the president's signature, the tax cuts will expire. what will the response be of the congressional republicans -- >> we will see what happens to double the lame-duck session. the electorate is very divided. unless the president tacks to
5:58 am
the mill, we will be faced with a horrible scenario. when wall street drops, it is not just companies that are suffering big is people interested in companies -- >> wall street has done very well -- >> i'm talking about pensions. the overall quality of life -- >> let me move on -- >> very basic point. >> the fiscal cliff is important i washington for good reason, but in the country, all these issues -- can you see any scenario where the two parties may be able to agree -- work force, education -- basically, equipping people to get ahead faster than we have seen -- is there any place where we've seen initiatives from the president or congressional republicans and where they might converge?
5:59 am
>> look, i've actually optimistic. this does not sound optimistic, but i want to sound optimistic. i came to washington in 1997. president clinton had been reelected, and he did not have a senate, and he did not have an expanded democratic majority in the senate. the president has said this before, but people had tried to defeat president clinton, it failed, and they recognized it was in their interest to get things done. things done.

Capitol Hill Hearings
CSPAN November 8, 2012 1:00am-6:00am EST


TOPIC FREQUENCY Us 22, Washington 14, Obama 13, John Boehner 10, California 6, Romney 6, Clinton 5, Iowa 5, Boehner 5, Harry Reid 4, Mitch Mcconnell 4, Walter Reed 3, Maine 3, Ronald Reagan 3, Texas 3, Joe Biden 3, Michelle Bachmann 3, Paul Ryan 3, Elizabeth Warren 2, Garrett 2
Network CSPAN
Duration 05:00:01
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 91 (627 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 704
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color

disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only
Uploaded by
TV Archive
on 11/8/2012